Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

News: Amd Ships First Athlons Following 65nm Tech Transition


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 sdy284

sdy284

    Mr. Staypuft

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW Chicago 'Burbs, Illinois

Posted 05 December 2006 - 07:47 AM

c|net Article
CRN Article
DailyTech Article
Actual AMD Press Release
OCC News Post

AMD chips made on the 65-nanometer process will consume about 30 percent less energy than the same ones produced on the 90-nanometer process when running at the same speed. In the first chips shipped on this process, virtually all of the benefit comes in reduced power consumption, said Nick Kepler, vice president of logic technology development at AMD.

Later, the company will balance energy conservation and performance gain, depending on what the designers want to achieve with various desktop, notebook and server chip designs, he said.

The improvements in part come because AMD is straining the silicon in the transistors inside its chips with a silicon germanium film to improve performance, a first for the company.

Straining silicon improves the performance of transistors because the larger germanium atoms slightly rearrange the silicon atoms and thereby allow electrical carriers to move more rapidly. In the N-channel transistors, which carry negative electrons, germanium spreads out the lattice of the silicon; electrons flow more freely, sort of like a deer running through a forest that's been thinned of trees. In P-channel transistors, which carry positive charges, the germanium compresses the silicon atoms.

"We planned it (silicon germanium) all along with 65-nanometer, but we were prepared to pull the plug on it if it didn't add up to a benefit," Kepler said. "Adding embedded silicon germanium is probably the biggest change."

Posted Image



#2 LoArmistead

LoArmistead

    OCC's misplaced Texan

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3012 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:'Murrica

Posted 05 December 2006 - 07:54 AM

Very nice! High-five! :P

sort of like a deer running through a forest that's been thinned of trees.


I really wasn't expecting to see that kind of comparison in a tech article, so I got a chuckle out of that line :lol:

"All Hail John Browning"

Unfunded US Welfare Liabilities: http://usdebtclock.org/numbers2/UnfundedLiabilitiesMx.swf
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

"Spears shall be shaken, shields shall be splintered. It is a sword-day; a red day, ere the sun rises! Ride now! Ride now! Ride for ruin, and the world's ending! Forth Eorlingas!"
** Grammar Police: Deputy **


#3 sdy284

sdy284

    Mr. Staypuft

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW Chicago 'Burbs, Illinois

Posted 05 December 2006 - 08:09 AM

more sources & processor breakdown added ;)

#4 bigred

bigred

    Don't even get me started

  • Folding Member
  • 9685 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 December 2006 - 11:18 AM

is it me or did they screw with the FSB on these chips again?
Some people are like Slinkies. Totally useless, but you just can't help but laugh when you push them down the stairs.

#5 Verran

Verran

    RIP 1981-2009

  • Honorary Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7026 posts
  • Location:Holt, MI

Posted 05 December 2006 - 11:28 AM

Well I got my answer to a previous question from this DailyTech article:

Do note that Brisbane core processors are still K8 based and not K8L like the upcoming Stars core processors.


Posted Image
[E7400 Gaming]~[Q6600 Burning]~[Opt148 Wife's]~[3200+ HTPC1]~[3500+ HTPC2]
"Thank you for helping us help you help us all."

#6 Sagittaria

Sagittaria

    Total Nerd

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4350 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Japan

Posted 05 December 2006 - 12:52 PM

Well I got my answer to a previous question from this DailyTech article:


meh... die shrink and that's all? not too exciting in my book :( It'll probably be cooler, use less power... and get a tad bit more OCing... :(

Daily: Lenovo T420

File Server/Folding 1: C2D e6600 | 2x2GB DDR2 cheapo | ASUS.. cheap something | Club 3D HD7970 OC | 3x500GB, 1x1TB, 1x3TB | 2x400W PSUs

Folding 2: PII X4 965 BE | Corsair XMS2 4x2GB DDR2 | Gigabyte GA-MA785G | 2xSapphire HD7970 OC | 2x80GB RAID-0 | Cooler Master V750W

 

 


#7 Verran

Verran

    RIP 1981-2009

  • Honorary Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7026 posts
  • Location:Holt, MI

Posted 05 December 2006 - 01:07 PM

I think one of the smartest things AMD can do at this point is offer a 939 version of the 65nm chips. Yeah, it'd be great for me, so I'm kinda biased, but still. If people are forced to go AM2 for all their AMD 65nm needs, then that means new chip, ram, and mobo all at once. Why not just go with the crown-holder in that case?

If I'm given the option of a 939 65nm chip, I'll take it. I have no desire to upgrade my mobo and ram, as they both rock, and the "upgrades" wouldn't even provide a substantial performance increase with DDR2. If I'm not offered a 939 65nm, I'll more than likely go Conroe, and AMD will lose my business completely. At best, I expect this 65nm shrink to match where Intel is (especially with their 1066 chips coming), so why buy brand new buggy AMD 65nm when I can get the same or better performance from the tried and true Intel chips that have been out for half a year now?

The smart move would be to give current 939 users a reason to stay in the AMD ballpark. If they're forced to upgrade to AM2, AMD will probably lose them as customers all together.

That being said, I can find no evidence of 939 65nm chips, other than red's ES mysteries.
Posted Image
[E7400 Gaming]~[Q6600 Burning]~[Opt148 Wife's]~[3200+ HTPC1]~[3500+ HTPC2]
"Thank you for helping us help you help us all."

#8 DECwakeboarder

DECwakeboarder

    BrutePC.com

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2712 posts
  • Location:Normal, IL

Posted 05 December 2006 - 04:39 PM

:withstupid: They have a HUGE base in the 939 market, and forcing everyone to upgrade to AM2 just to get 65nm would be a huge mistake (read: an Intel mistake :D ) Granted they may have a few features that require AM2, but just going to 65nm would be a huge plus for us 939 guys. What is with the 2x512kb or cache though? That seems like quite a waste. Granted Intel's 2x4mb of cache is also a waste, but I'd like to see at least 2x1mb on something as new as this.


So kudos to Congress for literally..uhh...taking a giant s*** on the poorest people in the country...because they deserve it! Well done folks!

4400+ X2......DFI Infinity nf4 SLI
x850xt............XP-120 w/ 38mm Panaflo


#9 fire_storm

fire_storm

    Total Nerd

  • Folding Member
  • 3977 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 December 2006 - 02:49 PM

I wonder do these chips have better performance then the 90nm ones or do they preform about the same but the 65nm ones just make less heat then the 90nm ones with no performance advtage?

#10 bigred

bigred

    Don't even get me started

  • Folding Member
  • 9685 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 December 2006 - 12:43 PM

I wonder do these chips have better performance then the 90nm ones or do they preform about the same but the 65nm ones just make less heat then the 90nm ones with no performance advtage?



questions like that make me swear at my monitor! especially when the answer is sitting right there at the bottom of the first post.


they have the rating system for a really simple reason. a 5000+ performs in line with a 5000+. what a shock there. yet the cache size is now 1/2 what it used to be.
Some people are like Slinkies. Totally useless, but you just can't help but laugh when you push them down the stairs.

#11 CrackHead

CrackHead

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 447 posts
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas

Posted 10 December 2006 - 08:55 PM

Does anyone know how these new AMD chips stand up to Intel's current ones?

#12 Crazystickfigure

Crazystickfigure

    New Member

  • Members
  • 11 posts

Posted 10 December 2006 - 11:05 PM

Does anyone know how these new AMD chips stand up to Intel's current ones?


Just a guess out in the blue here, but according to what bigred said about the chips being the equivalent of the current line, then they would preform just like the current line and size up to intel just like the current line. In other words, they will be far off the mark. Intel still owns the crown.